AC and corporate espionage

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
Some things are monopolized and work very well. How many processor manufacturers can you name?

[/ QUOTE ]

AMD, Intel...I'm sure there's more but there's 2. So much for a monopoly.

[ QUOTE ]
Government relatively rarely applies expensive overwhelming force it wields.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O RLY? How often is "rarely" in your opinion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't have armed insurrections in this country every day. No american city is bombed by the air force or shelled by the army like they did in Syria. People's weapons or properties are not being routinely confiscated by armed government agents.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? They use force evertime they collect taxes. Just because they are not physically harming you does not mean violence has been initiated.

Here's an example: A guy walks into a 7/11 and holds it up at gunpoint. Most of the time, the clerk just hands over the cash so that no physical harm comes to him. However, violence has still taken place.

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am sure it will be a bit more complicated than that. Perhaps giants like Coke and Pepsi will create diplomatic corps and try to resolve their issues peacefully, like countries do now. But I think the temptation to rub out a particularly brilliant executive whose business plan threatens rival's bottomline will be irresistible.


[/ QUOTE ]

And the executive's company will want compensation or reveange. No government to stop them. And before you know it, it's an all out bloodbath. Smart business move, I'm sure the company will flourish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Compensation can be settled, if they identify responsible party. Some industries have more than two giant competitors. One might end up with a lot of suspects. Revenge is expensive, and must serve a deterrent purpose. Revenge cycles will be eventually smoothed out for everyone's benefit. That said, business leaders wishing to succeed, must be ruthless competitors and use all means available to advance company interests. If the C&B analysis shows that a particular target must be eliminated, a successful leader will implement the measure. If potential costs exceeds the benefits, a smart manager will look for alternatives. it is up to the market to make sure that the costs of assasination are always in excess of benefits, and I do not believe market capable of ensuring that.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
It worked for Al Capone, if government is removed, it may be a part of standard business practice. We do not know, because no one has any experience operating business without government oversight.

[/ QUOTE ]

And bootleggers are no longer in business. Not because government force arrayed against them - government force was *more heavily* arrayed against them when prohibition was in force, and they prospered! No, the reason they are no longer in business is that nonviolent business models outcompeted them.

Anecdotal evidence: mobsters and voluntary businessmen *have* gone head-to-head. Who owns the LV strip?

[ QUOTE ]
Some things are monopolized and work very well. How many processor manufacturers can you name?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a monopoly. DUCY?

[ QUOTE ]
Some things are not easily monopolized, like food production, although big industrial farming conglomerates like ADM are still enjoying economies of scale advantage over individual small farmers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think food prices would be even cheaper if ADM were given a government-backed monopoly, and the small inefficient family farms shut down?

[ QUOTE ]
Some things used to be easily monopolized but the monopolies became too complicated to manage, like telephone service provision or car manufacturing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, telephone service was easy to monopolize back in the day... when government was handing the monopoly to the phone company. Was service better or worse then? Would you prefer a single telephone company? Remember Ernestine?

[ QUOTE ]
We handle eighty-four billion calls a year. Serving everyone from presidents and kings to the scum of the earth. We realize that every so often you can't get an operator, for no apparent reason your phone goes out of order, or perhaps you get charged for a call you didn't make.

We don't care.

Watch this.. [ she hits buttons maniacally ] ..just lost Peoria.

You see, this phone system consists of a multibillion-dollar matrix of space age technology that is so sophisticated, even we can't handle it. But that's your problem, isn't it? Next time you complain about your phone service, why don't you try using two Dixie cups with a string?

We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the good old days.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Government relatively rarely applies expensive overwhelming force it wields.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY? How often is "rarely" in your opinion?


[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have armed insurrections in this country every day. No american city is bombed by the air force or shelled by the army like they did in Syria. People's weapons or properties are not being routinely confiscated by armed government agents. There are few concentration camps. There are no curfews in major cities. There are very few mass arrests and no summary executions. The government does not need to apply all the force at its disposal to keep most people honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the current set of government officials prefers to project force on people outside the country instead of inside. Or did you forget about Iraq, Gitmo et al?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A credible threat of violence keeps most folks in line, and a threat of violence is not too expensive to maintain, provided government doesn't actually have to use violence very often.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with creating economies of scale?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the government's threat of force goes away, market will have to come up with an alternative to keep the business going smoothly. The fewer agencies providing the threat of force and the larger they are, the cheaper it is to supply. This is economy of scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Nationalize everything! Central planning ahoy!